What if the client wants you to plagiarize a design?

I did this quickie over the weekend for an architect client that was supposed to be a conceptual proposal to be presented by his developer client to a city council group.

He showed me a pic of a google apartment complex with retail on ground floor and just tells me "I want it to look like this" with the only specific info being bay spacing. After looking at my rough draft he goes "well actually I want to keep this from the picture, and these dormers ..............and this roof.

Pretty soon he had asked to to keep 85% of the original photo design. Do designers go after plagiarizers actively like in this kind of situation? Should I have said anything at all? I know it made things easier for me with a 1 1/2 day turn-around.

Here's a high profile case:

http://www.archdaily.com/497568/what-makes-a-copy-cat-a-copy-cat-the-complex-case-of-architectural-copyright/

I know my conscience will be gnawing at me all the way to the bank.

I get asked to do this by lazy architects 80% of the time...Not a problem so far

"..............great artists steal"? P.P.

Dormers. Nuff said.

.....oops - my mistake. I meant to say bay windows. You know, they almost sound alike.

Actually they cut into the roof and are vaguely reminiscent of dormers.

The project was moderne chic; not at all generic.

I guess it's not a big deal, but in the back of your mind you wonder if this lax integrity and ethics

might carry over into timely vendor payment.

haha fair enough. I think plagiarism is fairly rampant in any creative industry, intentional or not... Use your judgement as to whether it's in-line, on the line, or over.

Personally, I wouldn't do any work over top of another artists work. Using a photo for a background or to cut out a person is one thing, but blatantly photoshopping over someone elses work is another.

Sounds like this is a case of the architect being cheap and lazy.

Actually, I did the render from scratch but basically replicated the photo - with the same angle and all.

I did some snooping and did a Google image search and found the building address and the architect. It's quite a prominent

project in California. Gotta admit, my client has cojones.

Matching someone's camera angle is not plagiarism... it would be so absolutely absurd for someone to claim ownership on that haha

Matching someone's camera angle is not plagiarism... it would be so absolutely absurd for someone to claim ownership on that haha

Well in professional photography this is a very thin line, matching the subject and camera angle, it mean pretty much copying the shoot.

Regarding architecture, yes there is a lot of it, sometimes very subtle other times just plain old copy, but in your case I guess is what give you peace of mind really, because copy building get build all the time and some people just don't care, unless it is something like copying the Big Ben or Disney Opera house.

I am not saying is OK, I really hate it, I just try to avoid it.

Well in professional photography this is a very thin line, matching the subject and camera angle, it mean pretty much copying the shoot.

 

Regarding architecture, yes there is a lot of it, sometimes very subtle other times just plain old copy, but in your case I guess is what give you peace of mind really, because copy building get build all the time and some people just don't care, unless it is something like copying the Big Ben or Disney Opera house.

I am not saying is OK, I really hate it, I just try to avoid it.

In professional photography, a company hires a photographer to shoot their building. Great. They take the shots (and get paid), send them to the client, the client approves and releases the images (based on their contract). Then say, an amateur sees these images, and tries to reproduce them. Whether or not they are lower, of equal, or superior quality with the EXACTLY the same shot is a moot point to the fact that the photographer would only care about plagiarism is if said amateur attempted to sell the pro's original photo as their own. Copying the scene has nothing to do with plagiarism. Often times it is encouraged that people attempt to copy a photo as a learning tool. For a photographer to say: "I claim ownership of this scene that includes: x building, x time of day, x camera model, x lens, x shutter speed, x f-stop, x ISO, x composition, etc etc etc..." is completely absurd. Copy the shoot all you want, just don't steal someone else's photo and say it's yours... if you take the photo yourself, its yours. Same goes with rendering.

It's different if your client is saying to copy the building though. Use your judgement.

Good points - but the only reason I mentioned the same camera angle is that my client had the balls to use the same angle that would make the plagiarism immediately apparent. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the building will think "Copy Cat!" Normally someone might be a little more discreet in their plagiarism.

The downside of my client doing this is that the developer client at the other end might feel a. that he's dealing with an unscrupulous copy cat and b. that he might be legally liable for going with a copy cat design.

Even though I think we are getting out of the original question, I think you are wrong Ryan, when a pro photographer get hired, they earn several wrights with of all the images that they produce, even the owner of the Building (if it is arch Photography) even the owner of the building need to pay the photographer Creative wrights if he want to have absolute controls over those images.

Taking a photo with x equipment, and X cameras controls and time of day is exactly what it make that shot special, yes anybody else could do the same shot, but they can not sell it or display it as original work, because some one else already did and put some wrights over. No because everybody does it, it meant that is not plagiarism. Most photographer do not have the means to follow every website and prints in search of their photos but if they could it would be their absolute wrights.

in the case of what George is commenting, yes it is plagiarism, and it is up to the original building designer to follow any necessary actions, if they care about it. or it is up to the client to think if he want to build an copy of some one else building. If nobody does anything, then there is no problem but still it is copying some one else works.

Even though I think we are getting out of the original question, I think you are wrong Ryan, when a pro photographer get hired, they earn several wrights with of all the images that they produce, even the owner of the Building (if it is arch Photography) even the owner of the building need to pay the photographer Creative wrights if he want to have absolute controls over those images.

Taking a photo with x equipment, and X cameras controls and time of day is exactly what it make that shot special, yes anybody else could do the same shot, but they can not sell it or display it as original work, because some one else already did and put some wrights over. No because everybody does it, it meant that is not plagiarism. Most photographer do not have the means to follow every website and prints in search of their photos but if they could it would be their absolute wrights.

 

in the case of what George is commenting, yes it is plagiarism, and it is up to the original building designer to follow any necessary actions, if they care about it. or it is up to the client to think if he want to build an copy of some one else building. If nobody does anything, then there is no problem but still it is copying some one else works.

I'm actually correct. I am also a professional photographer. I also deal with professional photographers in this context and deal with contracts. In most circumstances, the contract allows the client to use the photos in any way they want without giving photo credits to the owner of the copyright - the photographer. The photographer still owns the photo, but the client, in most cases but dependent on the original contract, has usage rights in perpetuum. Another photographer copying a shot has absolutely nothing to do with copyrights of the original photo.

The best thing to do to avoid someone claiming "copy cat" is to create an original image (or as close as you're able to...) I don't think it's necessarily plagiarism to copy someone's image so much as it is just poor etiquette. You'd be hard-pressed to sue someone for liability if they copied your image if they made it themselves with different source material. Plagiarism is a legal term. This context is forgery - which is not illegal.

I studied law with Lionel Hutz, so I'm pretty sure I have a good grasp on things.

http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/2007/01/copyright_prote.html

"In conclusion, a photograph will have copyright protection if it has a minimal level of originality, which requires more than “slavish copying” of the underlying material. If the photograph is a derivative work, the photograph must have more than trivial differences with, and must not affect the scope of copyright protection of, the underlying work. To be successful on an infringement claim, the infringing work must be substantially similar to a protectible element of the original photograph. Finally, a photographer may share joint authorship with a third party if the parties intend the final work to be jointly owned, and if each party made a copyrightable contribution to the work. Mere ownership or control of the subject matter will not suffice."

So in other words, it sounds like what is done to the photograph to make it unique is more important than the photograph itself. Say I take a picture of the Statue of Liberty and put 14 lens flares around her. Person B can't take the same photo, from the same spot and put 14 lens flares on her and call it original. However, if you put 16 lens flares, then you sir are original.

For all of you legal eagles out there a good case study is the case of Leigh v. Warner Bros.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9036125134677203444&q=Leigh+v.+Warner+Bros.+Inc&hl=en&as_sdt=4006&as_vis=1

By the way, if copying dormer styles is considered copyright infringement. 100% of the home builders out there are totally screwed as the very first guy who did the a-typical dormer style just walked into a ass-ton of cash and frivolous lawsuits. Ditto on the guy who created the 6'8" 6-panel white paint door. Only one house in America can have that one.

This makes is virtually impossible to copy a photo. Say Photo A was taken at 3700k temp, Photo B is exactly the same in every regard but taken at 3800k temp. For all intents and purposes, the photos are identical except for a minor white balance difference but different enough to not infringe on the original. As I said, you'd be hard pressed to sue for someone taking the same photo you took.

Actually it's 3 blocks shown in the photo with entrance towers in between - towers have balconies on the top - ditto.

Left block is dark gray with top story slanted out - ditto

Middle block has brown bay window towers with slanted tops that go up and penetrate the roof line - ditto

Ground floor is 14 ft high retail punctuated by regularly spaced columns - ditto

I think it would be seen as more than just casual coincidence.

Maybe a more appropriate question is whether or not it's your responsibility to bring this up, since you are not actually plagiarising anything - your client is.

Do you point fingers and potentially burn bridges, stick your head in the sand and take the job, politely decline and lose the cash, or come up with some design that is "substantially original" to make it passable in your moral judgement? If the architect is lazy, they might be open to letting you make changes. All said and done, you won't be in any position for liability in this case since you, as the artist, will be able to create the image to be legally original. Make sure you have a tight contract

Thanks. I think that covers all the bases.

A final option is to make some extra cash by blackmailing the guy to not tell the big client or the original architect....heh heh heh.

Surely we're talking about a potential project in the very first infancy stages here?

Is it that your client is trying to get enthusiasm for a scheme (get his ducks is a row with some funding etc) and needs some concepts to swing that stage of the process or is this whole thing further down the road?

This sort of thing happens all the time at the earliest stages, if it's a developer seeking to secure the necessary co-operation (investment / joint venture / council appvl etc.) to move the proposal onto the next stage then a very broad brush scheme based on outright plagiarism is pretty common. There's obviously a gulf between this broad brush and the raft of detail plans, elevations and sections required to ultimately make such plagiarisms manifest. Think of all the "value engineering" still to be done ripping any design out of the original concept - until the bean counters are happy with another bland box coming off the production line.

I wouldn't get your knickers in a twist until much later on in the process - then I might be inclined to clear my throat and respectfully suggest some tactical divergence from the original. But unless it's about to be built as such, for now, I'd rest easy.

i would have no problems copying a reference image if im getting paid

work first questions later

Thats called architecture these days my friend..

The laws clearly offer little protection to the original design, I mean we have about 20 or 30 Eiffel towers in the world!

I'm pretty sure you could replicate the Bilbao's Guggenheim; changing a curve here and there and there'd be nothing Frank G could do about it.

It's funny how most people are going - yeah, lazy architects, it happens...........

But it our renderings gets ripped off by someone and put on their website as a work example, we're screaming bloody

murder and flaming the guy on every 3D site on the internet and demanding he be burned at the stake.

Thats called architecture these days my friend..

been hard to take any of this seriously for awhile now, imo

"architecture" "3D" "digital 'art' "

buncha BS now, and you know it

and now ACTION FIGURES!!!

yep

funny:p